REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.628 OF 2007

RAMESH … APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA               … RESPONDENT WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1272 OF 2007

AJIT SINGH … APPELLANT

VERSUS

CHANDER BHAN & ORS.                  … RESPONDENTS

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1273 OF 2007

RAJESH & ORS.              … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA               … RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1274 OF 2007

RAJ BIR  … APPELLANT VERSUS

CHANDER BHAN & ORS.                  … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T  

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

1. All these appeals by grant of leave arise from the  

judgment dated 25th May, 2006 passed by the Punjab and  

Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 918-DB of 2003  

and  as  such  they  were  heard  together  and  are  being  

disposed of by this common judgment.  

2. Criminal  Appeal  No.  628  of  2007,  Criminal  

Appeal No. 1273 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal No.1274 of  

2007  have  been  filed  by  the  appellants  against  the  

judgment  of  conviction  and  sentence  whereas  Criminal  

2

Appeal No.1272 of 2007 has been filed against the acquittal  

of accused Chander Bhan and Lachhman.

3. The prosecution started on the basis of the report  

given by PW.1, Randhir before the Assistant Sub-Inspector  

of Police in Civil Hospital, Jind on 21.4.1997 at 1.30 P.M.  

According  to  the  First  Information  Report,  there  was  

litigation  between  Baba  Krishangir  and  Baba  Joragir  in  

respect of 105 Killas of land in village Pokhri Kheri which  

travelled upto the Supreme Court and decided in favour of  

Baba Krishangir,  who was in  possession  thereof.   It  has  

been alleged that in August last year,  followers of Joragir  

fired at Krishangir at Jind Court as Joragir wanted to take  

possession of the land. Informant claims to be the supporter  

of Krishangir and according to him on 21.4.1997 at 7 A.M.  

he along with other persons including PW.3, Vedpal were at  

the  Dera  and  at  that  point  of  time  appellant  Rajbir  

(appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1274 of 2007), appellants  

Rajesh,  Dharamvir  son  of  Rajmal,  Hoshiara,  Jage,  

Dharamvir  son  of  Maha  Singh,  Ram  Mehar  alias  Babru  

3

Dass  and  Prem  Singh  (appellants  in  Criminal  Appeal  

No.1273 of 2007) and Ramesh (appellant in Criminal Appeal  

No.628 of 2007) besides the accused persons acquitted by  

the trial court and those acquitted by the appellate court  

variously armed came to the place of occurrence from the  

house of Joragir situated nearby. It has been alleged by the  

prosecution  that  Chander  Bhan,  since  acquitted  by  the  

High Court, gave exhortation to other accused persons to  

teach a lesson to the followers of Krishangir present there  

for not allowing them to enter the land, whereupon all the  

accused  persons  attacked  them.  This  was  protested  by  

Krishan a supporter of the Dera, who came to the place of  

occurrence  on  hearing  the  noise  and  asked  the  accused  

persons  as  to  why  they  were  assaulting  the  followers  of  

Krishangir.   At  this,  appellant  Dharambir  son  of  Rajmal  

fired  from his  pistol  which  caused  injury  on  the  face  of  

Krishan and he fell down there.  Prem Singh fired from his  

pistol at PW.3 Vedpal on his right shoulder. Appellant Jage  

as also appellant Teka gave lathi  blows on the head and  

right arm respectively of  the informant’s  brother,  namely,  

4

Ramesh.   Appellants  Ramesh  and  Ram  Mehar  besides  

another accused assaulted Raj Kumar causing injuries on  

the left arm, left hand and head. Appellant Dharambir son  

of  Maha  Singh  gave  two  lathi  blows  on  the  head  of  the  

informant, namely, Randhir. Appellant Rajbir gave gandasa  

blow  on  the  shoulder  of  Phool  Singh,  whereas  appellant  

Hoshiara gave lathi blows on the right hip of the informant.  

Appellant Rajesh is alleged to have shot at the informant  

from his pistol causing injury on his left hand. During the  

fight, according to the prosecution, Darbara son of Chhotu  

Ram and Rajpal son of Nafe Singh came to the spot and  

witnessed the occurrence and the accused persons on their  

arrival ran away from the place of occurrence.   Bhim Singh  

son  of  Nafe  Singh  took  the  injured  Krishan  to  the  Civil  

Hospital, Jind in a tractor but he succumbed to the injury  

in the way.  

4. On the basis of the aforesaid information, a case  

under Sections 302, 307, 448, 449, 323, 324, 148 read with  

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and  

5

54/59 of the Arms Act was registered against the appellants  

and other accused persons since acquitted by the trial court  

as also the appellate court. Police after usual investigation  

submitted the charge-sheet and the accused persons were  

committed to the Court of Sessions to face the trial. Charges  

were framed and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be  

tried. In order to bring home the charges the prosecution  

altogether  examined  20  witnesses  and  exhibited  a  large  

number of documents. Out of the witnesses examined by  

the prosecution PW.1 Randhir, PW.2 Ajit, PW.3 Vedpal and  

PW.4 Rajpal,  claim to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence  

and had sustained injuries.  All of them in their evidence  

had supported the case of the prosecution.   

5. The trial court relying on the evidence of the eye-

witnesses  and  doctors  who  examined  them  and  who  

conducted the postmortem report came to the conclusion  

that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond  

all reasonable doubt so far as the appellants herein and the  

respondents Chander Bhan and Lachhman are concerned.  

6

Accordingly,  all  of  them  have  been  held  guilty  under  

Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 325/149, 324/149 and  

323/149,  307/149,  325/149,  324/149 and 323/149 and  

449 of  the  Indian Penal  Code  and sentenced to  undergo  

various terms of imprisonment, including imprisonment for  

life  under  Section  302/149  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code.  

Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 7, namely, Rajesh, Dharambir and  

Prem Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 1273 of 2007 have also  

been  held  guilty  under  Section  25  of  the  Arms  Act  and  

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years  

and fine of Rs.500/-.  However,  while convicting them the  

trial court has acquitted altogether nine accused persons. It  

is relevant here to state that besides the appellants herein,  

the trial court had also convicted accused Teka, Lachhman,  

Chander  Bhan  and  Ramphal  and  all  of  them have  been  

acquitted by the High Court in appeal.  It is further relevant  

here to state that against acquittal of Chander Bhan and  

Lachhman, appeal has been filed but the acquittal of Teka  

and Ramphal has not been assailed.  

7

6. Accused  persons  held  guilty  by  the  trial  court  

preferred appeal and the High court on appreciation of the  

evidence came to the conclusion that the appellants herein  

assembled  in  the  house  of  Joragir  variously  armed  with  

pistol, gun, lathis, gandasa and bricks and the appellants  

were  the  members  of  the  unlawful  assembly  and  in  

furtherance  of  their  common  object  caused  the  death  of  

Krishan.   Accordingly  the  High  Court  maintained  the  

conviction  of  the  appellants,  excepting  Teka,  Lachhman,  

Chander Bhan and Ramphal.  While acquitting respondents  

Chander Bhan and Lachhman and other two convicts, the  

High  Court  on  appraisal  of  the  materials  came  to  the  

conclusion that they have been falsely roped in the case.

7. We  have  heard  the  Counsel  representing  the  

parties.  

8. It has been contended that the conviction of the  

appellants with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal  

Code is illegal as the appellants cannot be said to be the  

8

members of unlawful assembly and committed the offence  

in prosecution of their common object.  They submit that all  

the appellants have to be held guilty for their individual acts  

and  it  cannot  be  said  that  when  they  assembled  their  

common object was to cause the death of deceased Krishan  

or cause injuries to the injured persons.  Mr. D.P. Singh,  

learned counsel particularly emphasized that there being no  

overt act alleged against appellant Ramesh of causing injury  

to the deceased, he cannot be roped with the aid of Section  

149 of the Indian Penal Code.   

9. We do not find any substance in the submission  

of the learned counsel.  In our opinion the common object of  

an unlawful assembly has to be gathered from the nature of  

the assembly, arms possessed by them and the behaviour of  

the assembly at or before the occurrence.  It is an inference  

which has to be deduced from the facts and circumstances  

of each case.  To attract the mischief of Section 149 of the  

Indian  Penal  Code,  it  is  not  necessary  that  each  of  the  

accused  must  commit  some  illegal  overt  act.   When  the  

9

assembly  is  found  to  be  unlawful  and  if  offence  is  

committed  by  any  member  of  the  unlawful  assembly  in  

prosecution  of  the  common  object,  every  member  of  the  

unlawful assembly shall be guilty of the offence committed  

by another member of the assembly. It has to be borne in  

mind  that  an  assembly  which  is  not  unlawful  when  

assembled  may  subsequently  become  an  unlawful  

assembly.  In  the  present  case  there  is  overwhelming  

material  to  show  that  the  appellants  variously  armed,  

including  the  fire  arms  assembled  at  one  place  and  

thereafter  came  to  the  place  of  occurrence  and  started  

assault together and when protested by the deceased, one of  

the members of the unlawful assembly shot him dead and  

some of them caused injury by fire arm, gandasa, lathi, etc.  

to  others.   All  of  them have  come  and  left  the  place  of  

occurrence  together.   From what  has  been  found  above,  

there is no escape from the conclusion that appellants were  

the members of the unlawful assembly and offences have  

been committed  in  pursuance  of  the  common object  and  

hence,  each  of  them  shall  be  liable  for  the  offence  

10

committed by any other member of the assembly.  In our  

opinion, the trial court correctly held them guilty with the  

aid  of  Section  149  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  which  has  

rightly been affirmed in appeal by the High Court.  

10. The view which we have taken finds support from the  

decision of Chandra Bihari Gautam and others vs. State  

of Bihar, SCC 2002 (9) SCC 208, in which it has been held  

as follows :

 “8. Section 149 has two parts. First part deals   with the commission of an offence by a member  of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the   common object of that assembly and the second  part deals with  the liability of the members of   the  unlawful  assembly  who  knew  that  an  offence  was  likely  to  be  committed  in  prosecution  of  the  object  for  which  they  had  assembled.  Even  if  the  common object  of  the   unlawful  assembly  is  stated  to  be  apprehending Nawlesh Singh only, the fact that   the accused persons had attacked the house of  the complainant at the dead of night and were   armed  with  deadly  weapons  including  the   guns,  and  used petrol  bombs,  proves  beyond  doubt that they knew that in prosecution of the   alleged  initial  common  object,  murders  were   likely  to  be  committed.  The knowledge  of  the   consequential action in furtherance of the initial   common  object  is  sufficient  to  attract  the  applicability  of  Section  149  for  holding  the  members  of  the  unlawful  assembly  guilty  for  the commission of the offence by any member of  

11

such  assembly.  In  this  case  the  appellants,   along  with  others,  have been  proved  to  have  formed  an  unlawful  assembly,  the  common  object  of  which  was  to  commit  murder  and  arson and in  prosecution  of  the  said  common  object  they raided the  house of  the  informant   armed with  guns and committed  offence.  The  courts  below have,  therefore, rightly held that   the  accused  persons  formed  an  unlawful   assembly, the common object of which was to  commit  the  murder  of  the  informant  and  his  family members and in prosecution of the said   common  object  six  persons  were  killed.  The  appellants were also proved to have hired the  services of some extremists for the purposes of   eliminating the family of the complainant.”

11. So far as the acquittal of respondents Chander Bhan  

and Lachhman is concerned the High Court on appraisal of  

the material came to the conclusion that they have falsely  

been roped.  The aforesaid conclusion has been arrived at  

on appraisal of the evidence.  The view taken by the High  

Court, in our opinion, is one of the possible views  and that  

being so, order of  acquittal  needs no interference by this  

Court.   

12

12. In the result,  we do not  find any merit  in all  these  

appeals and same are dismissed accordingly.

..………..……………………………….J.                      (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

                             ……………………………………………J.                                 (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

New Delhi, October 21, 2010.  

13

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.628 OF 2007 RAMESH … APPELLANT

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA               … RESPONDENT

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1272 OF 2007

AJIT SINGH … APPELLANT VERSUS

CHANDER BHAN & ORS.                  … RESPONDENTS

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1273 OF 2007

RAJESH & ORS.              … APPELLANTS VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA               … RESPONDENT WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1274 OF 2007 RAJ BIR  … APPELLANT

      VERSUS CHANDER BHAN & ORS.                  … RESPONDENTS

Dear

Draft Judgment in the above matter is sent herewith for  

perusal and kind consideration.

With regards,

        (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad)                                                18.10.2010

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi

14

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.628 OF 2007 RAMESH … APPELLANT

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA               … RESPONDENT

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1272 OF 2007

AJIT SINGH … APPELLANT VERSUS

CHANDER BHAN & ORS.                  … RESPONDENTS

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1273 OF 2007

RAJESH & ORS.              … APPELLANTS VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA               … RESPONDENT WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1274 OF 2007 RAJ BIR  … APPELLANT

      VERSUS CHANDER BHAN & ORS.                  … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T  

TO  BE  PRONOUNCED  BY

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE   

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD

ON

  21.10.2010  (THURSDAY)

15